Last night my wife and I were watching a Forensic Files episode where a husband murdered his wife after she: 1) Decided to divorce him and take half of their assets and 2) Revealed that his oldest son wasn’t really his, and that she was going to announce this to the son and everyone at the son’s graduation party. The episode is titled Hell’s Kitchen. Skip to 3:30 to see the details of her despicable plan:

After seeing this my wife pointed out that if there is ever a reason for murder, this was a very good one. Not only was the wife intentionally humiliating her husband (who did nothing wrong other than trust her), but she was planning on humiliating the son as well. What young man wants his mother to announce that she is a whore and he is a bastard at his graduation party?

As has been mentioned many times on the manosphere, cuckoldry is an extremely vicious act, and roughly equivalent to forcible rape in the rage and humiliation it imposes on the victims. Both the child and the man tricked into false paternity are deeply harmed when the truth ultimately comes out.

My wife is a huge UFC fan, and her favorite fighter is Randy Couture. In his autobiography he talks about the impact his uncertain paternity has had on both his father and himself. His father had gone to his grave not wanting a paternity test, because he was too afraid to know the answer. This pain haunted the son as well, even though he is arguably one of the toughest men in the world. Cuckoldry is absolutely devastating.

We’ve seen another high profile example of this recently with the highly publicized Arnold Schwarzenegger case. While there is much deserved derision for Arnold and hand wringing for his wronged wife and bizarrely the woman he cheated with, there is little attention given to the maid’s cuckolded ex husband or her son (click for video of ex husband).

All of this raises the question of how often this kind of thing occurs. I’ve seen all sorts of estimates referenced in the manosphere, but very seldom is there a link to an actual study. The best article I’ve been able to find on the issue is from Psychology Today. According to the article, The standard nonpaternity rate that is most commonly mentioned across cultural settings is 10%. The article references a study which took this a step further, and looked at cuckoldry rates based on the confidence of the father:

Dr. Anderson gathered nonpaternity rates from 67 published sources, with a broad spectrum of countries covered. Prior to reading on, any guesses as to the nonpaternity rates of men who had high paternity confidence versus their low confidence counterparts? Here are the nonpaternity rates for the two groups:

US & Canada Europe Elsewhere

High paternity confidence 1.9 1.6 2.9

Low paternity confidence 29.4 29.8 30.5

There you have it. Note that for each of the two groups of men, the rates are roughly the same around the various global regions. The bottom line is as follows: If you commission a DNA paternity test, you have roughly a one-third chance of the child not being yours. On the other hand, if you are confident that your wife has not had any extramarital dalliances then the probability of your having been cuckolded is very low (but still far from negligible).

Whichever statistic you look at, obviously this is a huge problem. Furthermore, it is a huge problem which can largely be avoided. The bulk of financial fraud and the humiliation for both the child and the presumed father occurs due to the deception which is continued for years after birth. Additionally, men are further punished by the court systems and are forced to pay child support for children they can prove are not theirs. The current system is designed such that it inflicts maximum suffering on men and children, while offering the maximum incentive for women to be deceitful.

This isn’t just a problem of men having money fraudulently taken from them, they also face the risk of being sent to jail. Consider the case of Francisco Rodriguez (emphasis mine):

Francisco Rodriguez owes more than $10,000 in back child support payments in a paternity case involving a 15-year-old girl who, according to DNA results and the girl’s mother, is not his daughter…

Yet the state of Florida is continuing to push him to pay $305 a month to support the girl, as well as the more than $10,000 already owed. He spent a night in jail because of his delinquent payments.

Why is he in such a bind?

He missed the deadline to legally contest paternity. That’s because, he says, the paperwork didn’t reach him until after the deadline had passed.

The obvious answer to the problem is to positively identify paternity via DNA when filling out the birth certificate. A lawmaker in Georgia proposed a bill which would have done exactly this back in 2008. I don’t see any reference to it passing so I am assuming it failed. In the article on the bill, they quote two women who are adamantly against making such testing mandatory:

“I do not support a paternity bill,” said state Rep. Sherry Jones, a Nashville Democrat. “I think it’s a real affront to women to say that every baby born has to have a paternity test.”

Rebecca Kopp agrees. She recently finished filling out the birth certificate paperwork for her three-month-old son.

“I think it’s offensive because I am married,” Kopp said. “Even for women who aren’t married, if they want to get a birth certificate, I think that that should be their right. I don’t think they should have to prove who the father is.”

Ironically it is married men who are most legally susceptible to false paternity in the state of Georgia:

Right now, if a woman has been married for 300 days before their baby was born, the husband’s name automatically goes on the birth certificate. If a woman is not married and wants the father’s name on the paperwork, she has to get a paternity test and have it notarized before the father’s name is listed.

If you aren’t outraged after reading all of this, you are one cold and calculating person.

Taking this back to the conversation I had with my wife, while she was very sympathetic to the husband who murdered his cuckolding wife, she was very much against the idea of mandatory paternity testing. She felt that it was accusing honest women of being whores (she had the same objection to the mandatory blood test for AIDS when our son was born, but did submit to it). I pointed out that cuckolding occurs because honest women are inadvertantly giving shelter to dishonest women by reacting this way. Any man who asks for a paternity test is risking massive strife with the presumed mother of his child. Honest women will be enraged because their honor is being challenged, and dishonest women will act the same way to prevent from being caught. After a fairly spirited discussion she changed her view and agreed that mandatory testing made sense, but she was very frustrated that we lived in a society where this was needed in the first place.

That is all it takes. I don’t care if its conservative, religious, secular, feminist, or moonbat witchery women, that is all the math they do.

If it advances women they are all for it (because they place themselves in the position of the woman) if it doesn’t they are against it.

That’s it. that’s as high as their moral development climbs.

This had me thinking of how one might prove this one way or another. Is this a case of honest women sheltering the dishonest in their midst, at great cost to innocent men and children? With this in mind, I propose an alternate policy as a sort of litmus test. The birth certificate application section filled out by the mother should include an optional box for her to check if she swears under penalty of law that it is absolutely impossible that another man could be the child’s father. The law should require a minimum penalty of 5 years prison for checking this box if the child is later shown to not be related to the father. If the box is unchecked, a paternity test is required to put the father’s name on the certificate. Furthermore a man should never be jailed or forced to pay child support for a child he can prove he didn’t father. The man should also have legal recourse against the mother for any financial support he was tricked or legally forced into providing.

This would overturn the current dynamic. Women who declined to check the optional absolutely certain of paternity box would not be able to play the but don’t you trust me? card.

I ran this idea past my wife and she accepted it without hesitation. Her reply was:

If a woman isn’t a whore, she won’t have any problems with the law or with checking the box.

89 Responses to The cost of cuckoldry.

I’m opposed to mandatory DNA testing, for a variety of reasons, the main one being I don’t like the idea of the State acquiring DNA data on every single person born (but than, ya’all know I’m paranoid like that) but that does not I’m oblivious to the problems of cuckoldry.

What I would be supportive of, is 1) proof of cuckoldry would result in a complete and total AT FAULT divorce, in which the cuckolded man WINS everything similar to how most women “win” in divorce court now – or if not married, the man has sole discretion on what he’d like to do with the child in terms of custody.

That way, a man fooled for years, and who has already made a bond with the kid, can retain custody AND GET CHILD SUPPORT FROM BOTH THE CHEATING WHORE CUCKOLDING WOMAN AND THE BIO-DAD.

DNA testing is non-invasive. A simple cotton swab by a husband without the mother’s knowledge would give the man all the cards. He can “trust but verify.” If his trust turns out to be well placed, he can just keep his mouth shut and she will be none the wiser.

If he finds out he’s been cuckolded, he can plan for divorce to his advantage.

As any divorce lawyer will tell you, the person who plans the divorce on the sly has a huge tactical advantage when they finally inform their surprised spouse that they’re filing and they already have an attorney and have already collected their evidence.

“I pointed out that cuckolding occurs because honest women are inadvertantly giving shelter to dishonest women by reacting this way.”

This is the thing that has always blown my mind…otherwise decent women fighting passionately for systems that in final effect ensure that whores will be counted among ladies, which in turn erodes the social bargaining power of actual ladies.

No disrespect to your wife (who as you have pointed out is an excellent woman), I think she and other women see it backwards. They think that by “protecting their honor,” the presumtion of honor will continue to extend to most women, and the few bad apples are simply “shit happens” cases.

But it doesn’t actually work that way. Instead, men who are paying attention see honest women protecting dishonest ones, and come to the view that all women are full of crap and not worth being trusted.

To use a germane example, why would an otherwise intelligent and capable woman like Doomed Harlot want to label herself a “slut” to “protect” the reputations of women who just want to get it on with a bunch of different bananas? Women are throwing away their moral currency by wasting it on other women whose only commonality is Team Woman.

Another thing I would tell to men is to learn the Mendelian traits – traits that humans inherit from mom and dad in classic punnet-square fashion. They can be used to include or exclude paternity and give a man clues that may cause him to question paternity, motivating a test on the downlow.

“Mandatory paternity testing would result in a huge net savings to the state and should be done for economic reasons alone.”

It’s good you bring this point up. I’m convinced a large reason alimony and presumptive-paternity child support laws exist as they do is for state expediency. Compare the trouble of tracking down the beta chump ex husband for money as opposed to the itinerant bad-boy who knocked the wife up.

Interesting post. It may be debatable whether we have a ‘raaaaaape culture’, but there really is no denying that we have a state sanctioned cuckold culture. It’s a little mind bending to comprehend it’s equivalent, a culture where rape was not only tolerated, it was encouraged, by individuals and organisations. There is no such culture I know of…

I’m opposed to mandatory DNA testing, for a variety of reasons, the main one being I don’t like the idea of the State acquiring DNA data on every single person born (but than, ya’all know I’m paranoid like that) but that does not I’m oblivious to the problems of cuckoldry.

Mandatory paternity testing need not be done by the state. The state can pass a law requiring it and private licensed DNA labs can do it, as is the case now. Further the law can require that the DNA samples be destroyed after the tests are done.

As well the testing on DNA done to establish paternity is vastly more limited than a full DNA workup that might show disease proclivities and so on.

The birth certificate application section filled out by the mother should include an optional box for her to check if she swears under penalty of law that it is absolutely impossible that another man could be the child’s father. The law should require a minimum penalty of 5 years prison for checking this box if the child is later shown to not be related to the father.

This provision would actually probably smoke out more cheaters than mandatory paternity tests. If she’s sleeping more often with her husband than her lover or about the same amount she’ll figure she’s got a good chance that it is her husband’s child, but not chance at all for his think she hasn’t cheated if she won’t check the 5 years jail time penalty box to avoid the paternity test.

Hmm, I now see why Arnold & the maid’s kid went undetected. Her ex-husband also has strong rugged features similar to Arnold.
The whole thing’s totally disgusting.

Like Keoni Galt, I’m opposed to the State keeping a data base unless it’s as Doug states above, then I’ve no problem in order to ensure my husband’s peace of mind.
Alternatively, I’d gladly check that “absolutely certain paternity box”.

Dalrock:

Well, I’m no lawyer, so perhaps one may chime in to correct me.
Here’s an interesting tidbit I’ve just learned from some TV court show.
The reason a father cannot sue the mother for child support fraud is because the money is intended for the CHILD. So it’s the CHILD would have to be committing fraud and it’s the CHILD who would be sued, not the mother. Of course, the child isn’t the guilty party, so there’s no case.
Ain’t that something?

[D: Astounding, isn’t it? This is why it is essential to accurately determine paternity up front, and make any deception formal and criminal. Right now “it just sort of happens”. That certainly isn’t in the best interest of the specific child, or for children in general given the breakdown in trust and essential institutions like marriage this ultimately causes.]

Your proposal is more costly in the long run – there will still be people who lie, under oath. There’ll be fraud and criminal trials and great fun.
[D: What was the downside again?]

she was very frustrated that we lived in a society where this was needed in the first place.

That’s a common sentiment among liberals, especially women. It’s similar in character to some opposition to private ownership of guns. To take action would be to recognize certain evils, which is painful to her.

The conservative knows man to be flawed and susceptible to sin. Enacting mandatory paternity and allowing citizens in good standing to bear arms empowers the good and diminishes evil.

[D: She isn’t liberal. She is coming at this from a different perspective. Once I pointed out how it shelters whores she felt differently. Her frustration is that we have allowed whoredom to become commonplace and all but accepted. I can’t fault her for that.]

@Keoni GaltI’m opposed to mandatory DNA testing, for a variety of reasons, the main one being I don’t like the idea of the State acquiring DNA data on every single person born (but than, ya’all know I’m paranoid like that) but that does not I’m oblivious to the problems of cuckoldry.

My solution centers around the birth certificate, which the state issues. No DNA test is required if the woman checks the absolutely certain box, or if they decline to list the father on the document. It is only required under my proposed solution if she:

1) Won’t swear she is absolutely certain who the father is.
and
2) Wants the father listed (and ultimately on the hook) anyway.

DalrockThe birth certificate application section filled out by the mother should include an optional box for her to check if she swears under penalty of law that it is absolutely impossible that another man could be the child’s father. The law should require a minimum penalty of 5 years prison for checking this box if the child is later shown to not be related to the father.

In the event such a law was enacted, I do not see much chance of it being enforced. That 5 year prison term would be watered down to 3 years unsupervised probation by some White Knight or a feminist judge in no time. If you doubt me, consider just how much time Mary Winkler spent in jail…

Mandatory paternity testing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent precisely what you have written about. At this time there is no other way to protect men and children from bad women.

There’s a murder investigation near Toronto where the police are asking/pressuring men who may know the murdered woman to submit to “voluntary” DNA testing. If they don’t, the police have stated publicly and loudly that the person who refuses will be moved to near the top of the suspect list. Of course, there are those who state, many of whom are women, that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Obviously, no law will work if it’s not enforced, but that’s a given no matter what the situation is. If you’re in a state or country where paternity tests require the mother’s written permission, it’s only a problem if that law is enforced (though we all know which of the two is more likely to be enforced). So long as there’s some personal penalty to the woman, even if it’s just a civil thing like automatic at-fault status in a divorce, it’s an improvement over the current system of “Cheat, and win!”

Regarding decent women and white knights defending the whores, I think that just falls under the usual “well-meaning idiots” routine. There are actively evil people out there, but most folks are just doing what feels good and helpful to them, and lashing out at perceived wrongs, without using their brains to think more than one step ahead. To combat that attitude, you force them to think, one-on-one, with someone they like and respect. Treating them as evil is counterproductive; it only reinforces their belief that the thinking man is, in fact, a bad person trying to hurt other people.

Won’t work on the actual evil people out there, but they’re in the minority (I hope).

But then, getting people to think is tough, unrewarding work. Between abortion (a woman’s right to choose!), safe-haven laws, default female custody, protected cuckoldry, and the cultural meme of the abusive father, actually trying to raise children just seems like an uphill battle compared to spawning a few bastard offspring. Forget Marcos’ plan to just sleep with 30+ spinsters, a man would be better off impregnating them and leaving after the abortion deadline passes, no worse for wear. Or maybe switch a few single mothers’ babies in the hospital as a form of protest.

Damn, it’s about high time we had something like birth certificates validated by paternity testing. With all the heartache and financial shafting that’s gone on over divorce/paternity, you’d think something a legally important as a birth certificate would use the best means available to establish its validity in order to prevent trouble. But no. That is B.S. Dalrock, You da Man! for bringing this up.

@Athol Kay – It would not save the state money. Right now, a divorced man doesn’t (or shouldn’t) pay child support directly to the mother. It goes through a state-run organization or state-licensed third pary. Fees are collected in addition to the child support money and the money is distributed to the mother from an account which bears interest which held by the child support agency. It’s a money-maker for the state.

@Keoni – maybe I read the above wrong, but a notarized copy of the test from a third party DNA testing facility might suffice? In that case, the govt. doesn’t have your DNA. (As far as you know, anyway.)

But let me just say, DON’T trust the hospital with this. I wound up with a daughter whose legal name was “Baby Girl” because of their inefficiency with paperwork. Didn’t cost much to fix that, but the point is that hospitals are busy places and paperwork goes awry randomly.

Even assuming that something like this could get passed (it can’t because it would harm the child) you are thinking that cheating women wouldn’t check the box.

You are thinking a lying, cheating whore will suddenly think it is rational not to lie because there is the possibility of a criminal sanction if she is caught, versus a very real sanction if she doesn’t check your box.

What would most people do in a situation where there is a possibility of a bad outcome versus a certain bad outcome? They would chose the possbile over the confirmed bad outcome. Every time.

You fail right there.

Of course they would check the box and the hapless husband would be reassured by the lie.

The penalty would mean nothing to the woman because they would believe (rightfully) they would get away with it.

Except for rape and murder, the statute of limitations for most crimes in most states is five years and a reassured man would likely not realize he’s been screwed until well after the five years.

Every possible ideology known under the sun is brought to bear against something that is inarguably inoffensive.

Libertarians hate the state so much that, even though they pay their taxes under penalty of jail, they will oppose a neutral test on ideological grounds, offering counterproposals that they very well know are every bit as untenble and unrealistic as the rest of their programme. Useless. Fucking useless.

Traditionalists either side with the libertarians, or take the “moral” argument that paternity testing is a kind of shit test: if a man has bollocks enough, he will ask for it, and if he doesn’t, well, fuck him, he gets what he fucking deserves. Useless. Fucking useless.

The only solution workable here is a neutral one. One which does not involve the husband accusing the wife. Mandatory paternity testing works. Dalrock’s solution works, but is less likely to be passed because it is fussing with the birth cert (which is novel), whereas adding one more test to an already existing slew of tests done at birth is much more likely and feasible politically simply because so many other tests are already performed routinely.

It’s disgusting that men would oppose this on ideological grounds, but that’s just a reflection of how weak men are, as men, politically. We see where loyalties really lie, to be honest.

As for women, it’s understandable that they oppose any measures to uncover nonpaternity. It’s not a rational thing, but a visceral one. DNA-based paternity testing is the greatest threat to one of the main reproductive red-queen strategies that the female sex has had since time immemorial. The genes in their very bones cry out against this, for obvious reasons. A few women will support this. Most will viscerally react against it negatively, spouting various reasons that are hamsterizing for their genetic interest in preserving the ability to secure genes from man A and support from man B.

How men choose ideology over a milennial step forward for men in the red queen race is simply yet another reflection of why men’s rights, as a movement, is dead in the water.

Not to mention insurance issues. If Mom and Baby are about to not be on non-Dad’s insurance, who’s going to pay for all those follow up visits and shots etc? Unless she’s got her own insurance, it’s gonna be the state. States get half the bill for Medicaid and the Fed gets the other half. States have moved a lot of welfare from their own books to child support collected from the fathers as part of welfare reform. It’s not in the state’s financial interest for any deception to be uncovered.

One way to sell the idea of Mandatory DNA testing is to spin it as a positive. If paternity is verified by a DNA test, then in the Father’s Name box of the birth certificate, you could have checkbox where it says clearly “Verified!!” or “Not verified”. I think there would be women willing to see their baby’s cheek swabbed and insurance billed a measly $200 or so to get that “Verified!” checked.

I really don’t think most women would be as against the idea as you suggest, Brendon. I don’t think the majority of women have the slightest interest in cuckolding their spouse and those who do will find a way around the mandatory testing because con-women find a way around everything.

Faithful women would think it is pointless because most women don’t do that and cheating women would find a way to use it to their advantage.

Honestly, I think most people should get their DNA done at birth. At 30 my husband and I got DNA panels, mainly for fun, but he found out that he has hemochromatosis. Treating it has resolved several persistant health problems, but we have to imagine how they wouldn’t have been there in the first place if he had gotten tested. I also found out I am a carrier for Tay Sachs. Luckily I wasn’t attracted to Jewish men much, but it definitely should have been known before I started dating!

The major religions, the legal codes, the moral codes have all been the product of men.

The favoritism of women in today’s society is again the product of men.

Women are very fluid in the morality and for good reason, but they always see things from the lens of benefiting themselves and their friends/family. Which is why in history women in politics always leads to huge nepotism chains.

Humanity would not have survived if women were not like this.

However, civilization and morality are completely dependant upon men.

The problem with this is thus: There are three groups of people in a very ridged biological caste system. There are the top ten percent of men (the alphas, the sociopaths, the users) the next group are made up of the women.

These two groups make up the so called “secret society” the pick up artists describe.

The rest are the untouchables.

The remaining men. The betas. The ones that civilization and women depend upon to make things, keep the utilities running and do all the crap work yet the women don’t find them attractive.

The top two tiers of the caste system like the way the system screws the untouchables and they are not going to change it.

And civilization cannot survive when the untouchables realize how badly the game is rigged and flip it the bird. Which is what is unfolding at the moment in Western civilization.

Dalrock this is such a great idea.
But we need to sell it more strategically, it should be mandatory maternity AND paternity testing before issuing the birth certificate. Of course you need to find a way to make the birth certificate at the hospital not be the legal one. You can sell it as a way to protect mothers from all the babies that had been stolen ( we had tearful women testifying this = emotional porn = sympathy from the white knights and feminists) if you introduce it as a way to protect women, then you have more chances to get it aproved, then if “by a total accident” some fathers are no biologically related to the baby, then the public wouldn’t oppose to more investigations done of the case and of course a cuckholder will get discovered and then after that at least the father will have a way out of the mess if he chooses to.

The problem with this is thus: There are three groups of people in a very ridged biological caste system. There are the top ten percent of men (the alphas, the sociopaths, the users) the next group are made up of the women.

Roissy says all grades of alpha make up about 15% of the male population of the US, with the highest of the greater betas also getting some casual sex from 6’s cute girls. I think that’s much closer to right than your figure. The girls in the next layer down are not all girls but the top 40% of non fat girls, 6’s on up, which might be 30% of all American girls in their 20s.

The lowest group is male omegas. In between are male betas below greater betas and feamle 3-5. I guess female omegas are between male omegas and low center betas of both sexes, but I don’t like to think about them much.

@Stephenie RowlingDalrock this is such a great idea.
But we need to sell it more strategically, it should be mandatory maternity AND paternity testing before issuing the birth certificate.

Thanks! I’m not sure we could slip that one by though. I think most women understand what this is about, even if they don’t take it as seriously as they should (initially at least). However, I agree that we need to sell it effectively to women. One way I thought of but didn’t include in the post is that it would catch cheating husbands as well as wives. Arnold was able to keep his child secret because the woman who bore him was able to deceive everyone. His wife would have been better off under either the system I suggest or blanket mandatory paternity testing. So less deception is a real plus to honest women.

That is very good, point indeed.
You have the foundations to sell the bill, all we need is to find a woman with the sad story of his husband fathering a kid with the nanny/secretary/best friend for years without she knowing or and a child of a rich cheating man living in poverty because he never recognized his paternity, now the question is are the whores stupid enough to no see this one coming and bitching as much as they can to make it stop?

“One way to sell the idea of Mandatory DNA testing is to spin it as a positive. If paternity is verified by a DNA test, then in the Father’s Name box of the birth certificate, you could have checkbox where it says clearly “Verified!!” or “Not verified”. I think there would be women willing to see their baby’s cheek swabbed and insurance billed a measly $200 or so to get that “Verified!” checked.”

This is actually brilliant. The only way this will really become mandatory is through the backdoor, as a requirement for the “health care system.” The most practical way is to spin it as necessary genetic testing so the government is aware of future possible health expenditures on the child’s behalf due to genetic issues.

Fortunately for its advocates, and unfortunately for guys like Keoni, the continuing tide of government involvement in medicine is going to mandate eve-increasing screening of the public’s health.

If good women want to be treated good then they shouldn’t ally themselves with bad women.

A better political grouping would be good women allying with good men.

That way the good men and good women can turn their attentions to ensureing that the bad men and the bad women can’t hurt or exploit either of them.

The current dynamic of good women allying with bad women, while it doesn’t allow bad men to exploit good or bad women, it does allow bad women to exploit good men.

Thus good men are disincentivised from being good in the first place and instead they are incentivised to become bad men, as a good man when exploited loses everything but a bad man when discovered of his exploitation doesn’t, (atleast signigicantly less than what an exploited good man loses).

Thus by good women allying with bad women and hence allowing bad women to exploit good men, good women are ensuring that they won’t get a good man. Therefore, it is in the self-interest of good women to cast bad women out from their ranks and instead ally themselves with good men.

If genetics means nothing, as those who are against mandatory paternity testing claim, then why not just mix and match newborns with parents at the hospital? Why should the mother go home with the baby she just gave birth to? A baby is a baby is a baby! What’s the big deal?

That’s pretty much what those who oppose paternity testing are arguing for, just with the genders reversed.

Mandatory paternity testing should be done not only for the benefit of the Father, who has just as much right to know beyond a reasonable doubt that his child really is HIS CHILD, but also for the sake of the child itself.

If, down the line, the child needs a medical treatment, say a transplant from the father, what’s going to happen when testing comes back revealing that the father isn’t really the biological father? T.S. kid. Your father is god knows where, so… You’re SOL.

I don’t like the idea of the State acquiring DNA data on every single person born

You are more up on the conspiracy theories than I am, so please explain the nature of the concern here (other than privacy, to which I am sympathetic). So what if the gummint has your DNA? What does that do for them? What can they do to you if they have it?

I went through my adolescence with my father protesting (to my mother) that I was NOT his offspring. His candidate for Paternity was a certain Peer of the Realm (whom my mother knew) but whose title (he being childless) died with him. Should I seek a Paternity Test and (50/50) assume my Title?

I care not, but see Cuckoldry as being no worse than Rape. They are two sides of the same coin. Rape you may say is a crime. So, I would add, at certain times and certain places (e.g. ancient Rome, and probably parts of the middle-east today) is Adultery.

isn’t California lifetime alimony state? The old man may have long made his peace with his cheating wife, but the prospect of having of a gray divorce, dividing assets, and then pay $1000 / month (or more) for life may have been too much.

Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is astonishing blog. An excellent read. I’ll definitely be back.

anonymous said: “The old man may have long made his peace with his cheating wife, but the prospect of having of a gray divorce, dividing assets, and then pay $1000 / month (or more) for life may have been too much.”

To get ridden to the poorhouse and then divorce (which was already coming) over it is one thing, but to be publically shown to be cuckolded and his son a bastard for it all along the way was too much. (Thanks for the alimony and raising your buddy’s kid to adulthood, honey, I’m outta here.) As Big Worm said, there’re principalities involved here (murder being illegal or not). I’m surprised he didn’t just shoot her, call 911 and have himself arrested.

The government could compare existing DNA to DNA found at crime scenes without having to acquire it with permission from a citizen, basically bypassing 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination. The government could plant that DNA at crime scenes. The government could share information about your genetic tendency to get certain diseases or disorders with insurance companies. The government could find useful genes and patent them, and the legal issues surrounding that have not yet been resolved (there is some fear they could, with laws as written, forbid you from having children).

Plus, there’s general principle about letting anyone, parituclarly the local power/violence monopoly, have information about you that you don’t control or authorize.

The government could compare existing DNA to DNA found at crime scenes without having to acquire it with permission from a citizen, basically bypassing 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Doesn’t bother me. My DNA isn’t at any crime scenes.

The government could plant that DNA at crime scenes.

If they are that “out to get you” they don’t need your DNA.

The government could share information about your genetic tendency to get certain diseases or disorders with insurance companies.

Eh, the insurance companies are likely to demand it even without government help.

I’ve always taken HUGE issue with three games women play: 1. getting pregnant to trap someone; 2. getting pregnant by one guy and passing it off as another’s; and 3. getting pregnant on purpose after he said he didn’t want any more children (eg, putting a hole in the condoms, not taking the pill, etc).

That stuff just *really* angers me because it is SO unfair on SO many levels.

I would go ahead and check a box and/or get a DNA test if the certificate required it. I mean, I wouldn’t want to pay for it, but I have nothing to hide, you know? I know exactly who fathered this kid. Well, they look so much like each other, it’s hard not to tell. 🙂 But still.

First, about a year ago I tied universal health care to paternity testing in a forum question and the proposal was universally rejected by female respondents. My firm suggestion to my son (and his girlfriend) also went unheeded. My conclusion is that a decent young man is likely to white knight himself.

Second, cuckoldry is a experience that is as uniquely male as childbirth is to female, and women – the all empathetic – take great offense at the notion that they can’t understand. No one is more indignant than the guilty, I say.

With the accumulated wisdom of trying to explain it to a woman or two, it’s like this:

Imagine discovering that your daughter is not your own, and not just that but that you were never even pregnant at all! The entire 9 months of gestation was a ruse, a conspiracy between your husband and a doctor beholden to him – not you. Every moment of those years you could have had a child of your own – stolen and wasted as water upon the sand. Perhaps you delivered her to her real mother every day you thought you took her to day care as you worked to provide for her, and every hour you worked was as stolen and wasted as your faux pregnancy and recovery.

Now your daughter turns to her REAL mother, as you are revealed as a rather gullible fool whose counsel shouldn’t be trusted. Every decision in your life had the welfare of your daughter at its core, and your husband has deceived and betrayed you in ALL of them without exception. You are as stupid as you are barren and the little girl’s life will be guided by her parents.

The courts give her to your now ex-husband, for you have no legitimate claim on her. Any visitation is a boon he may grant, or not.

The little girl you thought was your daughter is gone. There wasn’t even a funeral, nor the support of others sharing the loss. In fact, your ex-husband gets his ‘honor’ back, the little girl gets her REAL mother, and the REAL mother gets her child. No one lost anything but you.

There will be no grandchildren for you. You get cats and visits from other people’s children out of their pity for you.

Oh! And by the way! Despite the loss of standing in the custody decision,
Child support – to the tune of 15% of your gross income before taxes, social security, or anything else – will be garnished from your paycheck until she’s 21, because it’s in the interest of the child.

The paternity test, the samples and the results, could be held as confidential information under doctor-patient rules. Only the results would be necessary for any child support litigation, the samples destroyed.

I care not, but see Cuckoldry as being no worse than Rape. They are two sides of the same coin.

Cuckoldry resulting in issue when the woman is morally opposed to abortion and doesn’t believe in giving up any child of hers for adoption is as bad as rape resulting in issue under the same conditions. Otherwise cuckoldry resulting in issue is much worse than rape not resulting in issue. It’s massively worse than the typical date rape that was actually non consensual at the time. In most such cases the woman was sexually attracted to the guy and probably would have given it up to him down the road if he kept courting her.

What I don’t understand is this:
there is no need to call it “paternity test”, just call it “genetic sequencing to detect diseases and predispositions”.
If you frame it as “for the children” she will be in a disadvantage to reject the proposal.
Do it for the children. Do you want risk their health and their future if a genetic defect is not diagnosed and cure in time?
And, by the way, I like to know if she/he will inherit my <>.

I would avoid the whole ‘mandatory’ argument and frame it as a rights issue:

“No person shall be charged for the support of a child that is not biologically or adoptively theres. If female, a birth certificate with the person names as mother must be present. If male, a paternity test shall be ordered.

If the test indicates the male is not the father, the mother shall be billed for the test. If the test indicates the male is the father, he shall pay for the test.”

Sounds totally fair to me. This issue is one of my primary arguments against marriage. Only married males can be legally forced to raise other people’s children.

The various objections of “honest” women are not based in a desire to protect “dishonest” women. Their objections are based in a desire to continue the entire dual rights practice that we see in the implementation of the american judicial process.

If divorce law were changed so that establishing non-paternity both freed a husband from child support and established fault on the part of the wife so that alimony and shared property rights were denied, it would mean that, in this area, a woman’s protected status would be lost. This would be a first step in the process of restoring equality before the law in all areas. It would be a first step in eliminating gender based quotas and affirmative action. It would be the a step down a slippery slope to gender equality in fact instead of in name.

Various polls and studies pretty clearly indicate that the majority of women enjoy getting the unaccountable benefits of the current system. This applies the various social benefits as well.

Why would anyone be puzzled that the majority of women are opposed to proving the paternity of a child?

Why would anyone be puzzled that the majority of women are opposed to proving the paternity of a child?

Of course. It’s something that has been their prerogative for the entire history of the species — being the only person who knows who the father really is. DNA testing is extremely disruptive to women on a very visceral, “ur” level, which means that when the issue is raised you generally see the hamsters running at the speed of light.

Brendan: I don’t think it is as important for women to know who father is as it is to know that they are the only one knowing for sure that she is a parent to the child. An embryo bank would have no chance in competition with a sperm bank.

Well, I suggest a solution:
1) Before you marry, ask your future spouse to agree, in writing, to submit herself and the children that will be born, to genetic sequencing, for health reasons and to confirm that the children the hospital will deliver to you are hers and yours.

2) She Agree
Good

3) She don’t agree
Bye, bye, whore.

4) She agree before and change her mind after.
Is this a good reason to ask for a paternity test?

I’m late to the party here, but since “church” is mentioned on this blog, I figured that I should mention that your wife’s initial reaction against accusing honest women has some basis in scripture.

This conversation seems very similar to Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Note the punishments. The unfaithfulness was punished with death, while the false accusation was punished with a fine and loss of right to divorce. So both were crimes, but there was a difference in the severity. And the false accusation was still bad enough to be worth some justice.

So I think your wife had a point. It would probably be wise to not completely forget that point in the outrage over the larger injustice.

Yes, a false accusation (or at least an accusation that might be based on reasonable suspicion but later turns out to have no basis in fact) is injurious to a marriage. Dalrock acknowledges that. But times have changed.

We live in a society and a technological age in which a woman has easy access to sex any time she wants it, on her terms, and there is a veritable regiment of alphas ready to service her. She has easy access to birth control. She can have sex in or out of marriage, cheat on her husband, and divorce, all with negligible, if any, societal reprisal or sanction. She can get pregnant and unilaterally decide to carry the child to term, or have an abortion, and the father (whether he is her husband or a ONS) has nothing to say about it either way. She can lie about using birth control, get pregnant, and the man is on the hook for 18 years of child support — all on her whim and fancy. Women as a bloc have demanded and obtained these rights and privileges. A lot of Christian women don’t hesitate to claim the benefits of these privileges too.

That technology has now developed the ability to determine quickly and accurately the paternity of a child. A man now can determine whether he really is the father, and he can do it on the downlow with a home cheek swab test. He can even do this on older kids. This acts as a check on the above privileges. A man ordinarily is not going to demand a paternity test unless he has some kind of reasonable suspicion that he is not the father. If he has suspicions like that, chances are the marriage is in rough shape anyway.

The point is this: A man demanding a paternity test today probably won’t do it unless he has some kind of suspicion. He’s usually willing to run the risk of massive strife with his wife if he thinks there’s something there. Any woman who knows he is the father should readily agree to a paternity test on demand. After all, if she really is honest and he really is the father, she should have no compunction or qualms about drawing the blood, swabbing the cheek, and letting the DNA vindicate her.

Thanks for the response. I think I mostly agree with your “times have changed” point. We no longer punish unfaithfulness with death, and so the punishment for false accusations (which was lesser) must also be reduced in order to remain just.

What I really wanted to achieve was to point out that his wife’s gut instinct was not necessarily wrong or wrong-headed. In the final balance, it may not change what’s done, but it was a legitimate concern.

I’d be very upset if my husband asked for a paternity test. I’ve never done anything to deserve that kind of distrust of my fidelity to our marriage, and have actively done everything in my power to be sure that I am not in compromising situations (for example, I try not to be alone with a non-related male) and that I am not becoming emotionally close to other men (I’d never share marital problems with another man, for instance).

The men who are most likely to be cuckolded are the ones who marry sluts. It’s not the government’s job to protect them from the potential consequences of marrying a whore. On the other hand, the government should not force a man to pay child support for the child his unfaithful wife tricked him into believing was his. He also ought to be able to sue his ex-wife and her lover for whatever money he spent on the child before finding out the child wasn’t his.

I should have said that it isn’t the government’s job to protect a man from the consequences of his own bad decision to marry a whore. A woman doesn’t suddenly change from a good, honest woman into a slut who passes her lover’s child off as her husband’s. In all likelihood, there were signs before marriage that she was that kind of woman, and he either didn’t notice or was in denial. Men need to be smart about who they marry, for their own protection.

But still, he shouldn’t be punished by the government in the form of child support for another man’s child. That’s unjust.

Most men are smart enough about who they marry and if their woman is bad, she faces abuse and torture. And also, female cads commit paternity fraud and get treated harshly for their persona compared to male ones.

Treated harshly? Hardly. All a woman has to do is say she’s being abused, and the man gets kicked out and put behind bars. That’s what VAWA is all about.
A cuckolded man usually gets to pay for children not his, even if he knows that they were fathered by someone else. That’s the law, and only now is that law starting to be changed, after over a decade of DNA analysis proving to be reliable.
Abused and raped? Proof, please. I’ve heard that one many times, but never seen any proof to back it up.

At the same time, I’m not one to kill a child because their mother is immoral. I just don’t want to pay for them, directly or indirectly (taxes).

But if whores like the infamous Kathy on the internet wants to cuckold her husband for the ‘good genes’ that other males carry. I think we should ride the goddamn Darwin train straight into the brick wall at the end of the line.

IN other words: If women are going to use gene arguments to argue in favour of cuckoldry, I am going to argue in favour of the natural selection a man can ‘exert’ upon the children that are not of his genetic line.

I recommend that *every* father obtains the DNA test that proves his fatherhood and displays it proudly at their fatherhood party and have everyone drink to it and hold it up for all to see. Frame it! Show it! Celebrate it!

(and for those who adopt, well, use the adoption cert to show around.)

If we make that into a tradition, it will be much harder for women to try and steal the babies true identity and cockold the dad, aside from the fact that it promotes fattherhood be putting it on par with other official celebrations that concern family status.

From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.

From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.

From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.

From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”

From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.

From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.

From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.

From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.

From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.

From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.

From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.

Hmm. Ten percent eh? Well, not happened to me, never will (now), but under the old rules, I would have been obliged to go to the trouble of seeking that man out (a near impossibility back then, in fact nobody would ever have known in the first place).
Fortunately !Science! not only proposes , but disposes.
Meaning I can track down that sneaky wangmeister or his haplotype and therefore surname (eventually) , and recompense myself as tradition intended, by either robbing and/or enslaving him, or any number of his close kin. Or if they were persons of no means and therefore no consequence, keeping his (cleaned-up, of course, I’m not a complete barbarian!) cranium as a surprise wedding anniversary prezzy for the little woman.
But .. we’re all modern and enlightened nowadays, ain’t we? Sucks.
Happy Noo Year!

Imho, male jealousy (fear) is BIOLOGICALLY ROOTED and it is there to prevent/warn (as best as one can) the male from being cuckold. Some male protection, now passe, was in laws concerning adultery. The male fear of being cuckold and/or his anger over being cuckold can, and sometimes DOES, result in domestic violence. Seems to me, then, that SOMETHING should be done to lessen male jealousy and the fear of being cuckolded. That can somewhat be achieved by DNA paternity testing at birth of all newborns. Period. (Oh, but then we’d have to worry about the women chemists switching blood samples. lol)